The Shack — A critique

The Shack, Wm. Paul Young, Windblown Media, Newbury Park, CA, 2007

Eugene Peterson, author of The Message, says: "This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good." That’s like comparing the Bible to Alice in Wonderland. The one is filled with truth, the other with error. One has stood the test of time, the other will not last ten years. Truth be told, The Shack is not that good.

"Bill, it's a work of fiction!" That was the response one gave to me when I presented him with some of my criticisms of The Shack. That objection has been repeated by others. "It's a fictitious novel and should be read purely for entertainment value. The author never intended it to become a 'bible study book' or anything of the sort," is another example.

Is that a legitimate objection?

I do not believe it is. One of those that objected to my criticism of The Shack has himself remonstrated against Dan Brown’s fictional work, The Da Vinci Code. If criticism against the later is legitimate why is it not against the former? Dan Brown, as far as I know, does not push his book as truth; Willie Young does. He would have you believe that while it is a novel, that much of it is true. He states in his blog, Wind Rumors, that “Mack is mostly me” and “the conversations are very real and true.”

I also believe that criticism of The Shack is fair and appropriate because, even if there was a flat-out denial of it being a true-to-life real story, it portrays Christianity and Christianity’s God in ways that are supposed to make God more personal and understandable to people, along with making the Christian life more real and understandable, as well. However, I believe the author misses the mark so widely that this book will further confuse the many who are biblically illiterate and whose Christian beliefs are shallow.

Fiction that purports to be biblical and that portrays God, whether written by a Christian or an unbelieving author, must first and foremost be truthful. It is at this very level that The Shack falls short.

My first objection to Shack is the constant over-familiarity of referring to God as “Papa.” I suppose this usage is deduced from Romans 8:15. Modern preachers tell us that abba is the Aramaic word for “daddy.” Where they got that I do not know. Abba comes originally from the Chaldee and passed into Aramaic and means, “Father.”

While the Bible tells Christians that they may come before the throne of God boldly, it never tells us we can come to God as familiars. In fact, we must come on the merits of Jesus Christ. None of the apostles, who were much closer to Christ than any character in The Shack, were so impudent as to refer to the Father of our Lord as “Papa.”

My second objection to The Shack is its misrepresentation of God the Father. Mack, the main character in the story, has a run-in with God. He sees God in human form. What does God look like in The Shack? Aunt Jemima or, as it says in the words of the book, “he was looking directly into the face of a large, beaming African-American woman.” The Father is always referred to as “she.” This is horrendous, to say the least.

The Bible repeatedly tells us that God is not a man (and by extension, not a woman). The Bible also tells us that God is spirit and no man has seen God at any time. When God did decide to reveal himself to mankind, he did it through his Son, who is “the express image of his person.” Thick or thin, black or white, God cannot be represented by a woman, let alone any man other than Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit, too, is portrayed as a woman. Her name is Sarayu. She is Asian.

Mack’s vocabulary leaves a little to be desired. A book written for a supposedly Christian audience should be careful to be without fault and to set a good example. As I read the book I was often surprised and dismayed by the earthy language used. One example should suffice. On page 177 of my paperback edition, Mack is engaged in talking to the Lord of Glory (an image of Jesus which is actually lacking in the book) when he says, “But why do we keep all that crap inside?” Crap is a euphemism for … well, you know what for. It’s use is beneath the dignity of a child of God and certainly would never be used by one knowing he was talking to the Son of Man. That it is commonly heard, even in the house of God, does not justify its use in the book. In another place, Mack uses “Geez” in conversation with the Holy Spirit. Geez is a corruption of Jesus and its use is a violation of taking the name of God in vain.

The book also contains theological errors. In one place (p. 194) God the Father says, “I am now fully reconciled to the world.” I do not find that concept taught in Scripture. What I do find is that God sent his Son into the world to reconcile the world to him (2 Corinthians 5:19).

Jesus is quoted as saying, “…I have no desire to make them [Buddhists, Mormons, etc.] Christian.” I find that statement absurd, coming from one who supposedly writes from a Christian perspective.

One more error: The Holy Spirit says to Mack, “In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” The first sentence is not true. The second sentence is stated by the apostle Paul twice, in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 10:23. Willie Young’s use of it in this context wrests it from the context in which the apostle used it. In the first place all Christians are under some law. We are not under the law of Moses, but we are under the law of Christ. We are not under the law of sin, but we are under the law of the Spirit of life. We are under the royal law, that which requires us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. To say that we are not under any law is sheer foolishness.

My last complaint against the book is the attitude that Mack takes toward God in his great loss. Mack becomes bitter and withdrawn, condemns God and, in short, acts like a child robbed of his candy. Mack attacks and condemns God, doubts God, is angry with God. All of the emotions and thoughts that Mack expresses are those that you and I go through in similar circumstances. But they are thoughts, actions, and emotions condemned by God. How much better would it have been for The Shack to have pointed Mack to the book of Job where one suffers much more loss than what Mack did and responded without sinning. Alas, the author missed a great opportunity. The book finishes with Mack understanding more about God but never repenting of his self-centeredness and rebellion against God.

Greg Albright, editor of Plain Truth Magazine said, "William Young's insights are not just captivating, they are biblically faithful and true.” I think Mr. Albright, along with a lot of others, need to do more reading from the Bible. That is where the answers to situations like Mack’s are found. They certainly will not be found in The Shack.

Effective Antagonism

There are times we want to discuss a particular subject, teaching, or event in order to learn more about it. Sometimes we want to enter into a dialogue to understand the other person’s point of view, and sometimes we want to talk it over in order to correct or counter what we perceive to be an error in thinking. These are all legitimate aims.

Sometimes we are so convinced of the rightness of our own position that we run roughshod over those that disagree with us. I have seen pastors of many years do this as well as the exuberant young convert who is aflame with passion for his new-found views. Unfortunately, we often do great harm to the cause of God and truth by failing to take into consideration the person with whom we are contending. Next to the Bible, every contender for the truth should be thoroughly familiar with the principals of inter-personal relationships enumerated in How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie. How we pursue our objective will either gain us a hearing or a dismissal as just another troublemaker. Carnegie’s book will help to make it the former rather than the later.

I am not afraid of those with opposing viewpoints nor am I always opposed to having those views expressed in this blog. I, being human, am not perfect and therefore do not have perfect understanding. There are times I need to be corrected. One gentleman who did that in a humble approach was Russell Earl Kelly, PhD, Author of Should the Church Teach Tithing? You can read his comments at http://hermeneutical.blogspot.com/2007/09/honor-lord-with-your-substance.html.

Anyone can write a blog (and I am proof of that) and unless you know that person personally or by reputation you have no idea if he even knows what he is talking about. As a blogger, I have to do my best to establish and hold a readership. Proper use of language, vocabulary, punctuation, and correct spelling go a long way in giving me credibility. But more than that, I have to know what I am talking about. This holds true for those that want to comment on my posts as well. Let me give you a case in point.

The man that wrote in opposition to my article on the Trinity said, “Sorry, but your Trinitarian belief is incorrect. If you will check the Greek, you will find that the Pronoun used when referring to the Holy Spirit is neutral. The Holy spirit [sic] is the power of God. The bible uses the pronoun 'He' when referring to the Holy Spirit and it should be correctly rendered ‘It’. Just check the Greek.”

Any first-year Greek student will chortle upon reading that. “Just check the Greek,” — like the man is a Greek scholar. This man either has not the slightest exposure to the structure of Greek or is suffering from an advanced case of Alzheimer’s. Greek, along with many other languages, has three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. “Spirit” is neuter in gender, not neutral. The word “spirit” may be translated, depending on context, as “wind” or “breath” as well as “spirit.” It does not follow that because spirit is a neuter word that the object represented by the word is. One of the words used in the New Testament for child is tekna (τεκνα). Tekna is also a neuter word. Sometimes it refers to a female and at other times to a male child. No linguist would translate an antecedent or subsequent pronoun referring to tekna as “it.” Checking the Greek has to go beyond a quick reference to Strong’s concordance. By the way, there are also Greek masculine words with feminine endings. At any rate, the Bible translators are correct in assigning an English masculine pronoun to references to the Holy Spirit. This we will, the Lord enabling, show in a future post. If you don’t know Greek don’t use it in an argument. If you don’t know what you are talking about it is better to not say anything than to show your ignorance to the whole world.

The Basis of the Trinitarian Belief

In my blog post “One God — or many?” I said, “The Bible teaches that God is one,” and, “. . .this one God exists in a plurality of persons.” Many reject the idea of God as a Trinity because they cannot comprehend it or because they misunderstand it. The belief that the one God consists of three persons is difficult to understand, I admit.

There are those that would argue that the Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible. They are correct. However, the truth of the Trinity is taught in the word of God. The Bible does not teach systematically. One must often deduce truth by compilation: that is, we find bits and pieces here and there which, when put together, bring us to a certain conclusion.

Some argue against the Trinitarian position by claiming that the early church never taught it. That is also correct. However, The early church never taught contrary to the Trinitarian position, either. Specifically, the Church has never taught that Jesus was a god separate from the one, true God. Nor has the church ever accepted such a teaching that Jesus Christ was a created being. The Trinitarian formula was developed to counter the heresy espoused by Arius (d. A.D. 336) that Jesus was a created being and not truly divine. Arius and his beliefs were subsequently tried before the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) which formulated from the Bible the first Trinitarian statement of faith.

Only God can have all the attributes of divinity. The Bible ascribes to Jesus Christ and to the Holy Spirit all the attributes of divinity. One example should be sufficient to support the Trinitarian position. Only God is eternal. The Bible ascribes eternality to God the Father (Deuteronomy 33:27). It ascribes eternality to Jesus Christ (Isaiah 9:6). It also ascribes eternality to the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:14).

Only God can create something from nothing. The Genesis creation account says God created the heavens and the earth. When God was about to make man he said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness." This is the first indication the Bible gives, and that in the first chapter, that God consists of a plurality of persons. The apostle John said (John 1:3) Jesus Christ created the world. “All things were made by him, and [to add emphasis] without him was not made anything that was made.” Jesus could not have created himself nor could he be previously created, seeing he created “all things.” Likewise, the Holy Spirit was involved in creating the earth. Many scripture passages refer to the Holy Spirit working in creation, Psalm 104:24-30 among them: “You send forth your Spirit, they [the works of God] are created: and you renew the face of the earth.”

A careful study of the Bible can lead only to a belief in the Tri-unity of God, and only a study of the Bible will lead there. May God bless you with the realization of this truth.

God Won't Make You Do What You Don't Want to Do

“God is a gentleman and won’t make you do anything you do not want to do.” This is the quote I mentioned in yesterday’s blog post. I considered in that post the first portion of the quote,; viz, God is a gentleman. Today I want to address the latter clause: “and won’t make you do anything you do not want to do.”

Again, we must examine the statement in the light of the Scriptures. What does the Bible have to say about that? Does the Bible make any direct statements supporting that quote? Does it allude to the possibility of it being true? Does it make any direct statements to the contrary? Does it allude to the possibility of it being false?

In yesterday’s blog I presented evidence that God is not a gentleman and, more than that, not always gentle. Today I will show that the second part of the quote is just as false.

Let us start with the book of beginnings, Genesis. In the first chapter of Genesis God created Adam and Eve. Did He consult with them and get their permission to bring them into existence? Did God consult with you and ask if you wished to be born? When Adam sinned and fell from grace, did God commiserate with him about leaving the Garden? Did He not summarily expel them? Did He ask Eve if she would like to endure agony during childbirth? Did He ask Adam if he’d like to pull weeds the rest of his life?

We look a little farther in Scripture and we come across the prophet Jonah. “Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me,” (Jonah 1:1-2)
Did God make Jonah go to Ninevah? You may answer, “No,” and you would be correct. God expects His people to obey Him. Did Jonah go? Sure, after God made him willing to go. Did Jonah do what he did not want to do? He sure did.

Now, let’s go to our day and age to people like you and me. Does God make us do things we do not want to do? He certainly does. Does anyone you know want to go through the torture of cancer? No one in their right mind would. Yet how many people experience the debilitating diseases of cancer? This is done against our will.

And how about death? All of us are bound to die. Just the other day a young man of my acquaintance died. He was having fun, living life to the fullest. His recreation was innocent enough yet it led to his demise. He had no desire to die. He had no anticipation of death. He did not know that his life would be required of him. He left behind a beautiful wife and an infant son. This was not what he wanted. God made him do what he did not want to do.

We forget that God is sovereign. He owns us. “Look, every life belongs to Me,” God says to the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 18:4). God owns us because He made us; He is our Creator. As our Sovereign, God can and often does make us do what we do not want to do. Sometimes God gives us the option of disobeying Him, as He did with Jonah, but makes us pay through the nose (or the whale’s belly) for our disobedience. In the end, God will have the final say, rewarding us for what we have done whether good or evil.

God Is a Gentleman — or Is He?

I cannot count the number of times I have heard preachers, Bible teachers, and others say, “God is a gentleman and he will never force you to do what you do not want to do.” Like so many errors, repeat it often enough and people will believe it.

Perhaps you believe this is true. Support your view with Scripture. Can you find one verse — or even one sentence in the entire Bible that will back you up?

Is God a gentleman? Let's see what He says about that. I think it goes without saying that a gentleman is first, foremost, and always a man. A gentleman is a gentle man or perhaps, a gentry man (gentry being derived from Old French for gentleman).

Before we can determine if God is a gentleman, we must first ascertain if he is a man. That answer is specifically answered in God's word, the Bible. “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19). Do you see that? “God is not a man.”

In case there is any doubt, or if you reason that that is just one verse, here is another: “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.” (1 Samuel 15:29).

The Scriptures are clear: God is not a man. If God is not a man, how then could He be a gentleman? To call God a gentleman is to dishonor Him, putting Him on a level with His creation.

We must think of God as He is or we are guilty of mental-image idolatry. We must worship God in truth. We do not have the liberty to misrepresent Him or to portray Him as He is not.

God is God. Is that to say that God is not gentle? No. God is often quite the opposite: “With the pure thou wilt show thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt show thyself unsavory,” (2 Samuel 22:27). Was God a gentleman when he chased the Canaanites out of their cities with hornets (Exodus 23:28)? Was God a gentleman when he killed in a mass slaughter all the firstborn sons in Egypt on the night of the first Passover? Was God a gentleman when he drowned Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea?

Will God be a gentleman when he comes back in the person of Jesus Christ “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (2 Thessalonians 1:8)? There is nothing in the Bible to warrant calling God a gentleman.

Thankfully, God is a merciful and a gracious God and acts kindly toward all those that seek His face and desire to do His will. To those whose hearts are bent toward honoring God, God is gentle, kind, and compassionate. To those whose hearts are contrary to God, God will show Himself contrary.

“Or do you despise the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? (5) But after your hardness and impenitent heart you treasure up unto yourself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; (6) Who will render to every man according to his deeds: (7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: (8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, (9) Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that does evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile,” (Romans 2:4-9).